Name: SAVE America 法案要求選民出示證件？ (What is the SAVE America Act requiring voter ID?)
Uploaded: 2026-02-12T23:05:00.000Z
Duration: 5 min

情態副詞

The House has officially passed the GOP's Save America Act.

共和黨的 Save America Act 已由眾議院正式通過。

The act would require government mandated proof of citizenship, such as passports or birth certificates, to register to vote.

這項法案要求登記投票時，必須提供政府規定的公民身份證明，例如護照或出生證明。

It would also require states to remove noncitizens from existing voter rolls supporters of the bill say would protect election integrity and crack down on noncitizen voting, while opponents argue the bill would make registering harder for millions of voters.

法案支持者表示，這將有助於保護選舉公正性並打擊非公民投票，而反對者則認為這會讓數百萬選民更難登記。

So the Constitution already prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal and state elections, and

憲法已經禁止非公民參與聯邦和州級選舉，

state election boards say instances of noncitizen voting are rare.

州選舉委員會表示，非公民投票的案例非常罕見。

The bill now heads over to the Senate, where it faces a potential filibuster from the Democrats.

法案現在將送往參議院，民主黨可能會在那裡發動冗長辯論。

So let's bring in ABC News legal contributor James Sample for more on this.

讓我們請 ABC News 法律特約撰稿人 James Sample 來為我們進一步說明。

James，你對這項法案有什麼看法？

This is a bill that would dramatically change the role of the federal government in the administration of federal elections.

這是一項將劇烈改變聯邦政府在聯邦選舉管理中角色的法案。

Even though federal elections are by definition for federal office, they are administered primarily at the state level.

雖然聯邦選舉定義上是為了聯邦職位，但主要還是由各州來管理。

And that that is a function of Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution, which the framers of the Constitution made very clear, gives the states the primary responsibility for administering elections and gives the federal government only a small backup role.

這是憲法第一條第四款的功能，憲法制定者非常清楚地表明，各州對管理選舉負有主要責任，聯邦政府只扮演一個小小的備用角色。

But this would dramatically shift that balance if it were to become law.

但如果這項法案通過成為法律，將會劇烈改變這種平衡。

And it would most importantly and most immediately pose significant barriers for individuals, many individuals who are already US Citizens, who've in many cases voted many times properly because they would have to obtain not just identification, but

最重要、最直接的影響是，許多已經是美國公民、並且在許多情況下都正確投過票的人，將面臨重大的障礙，因為他們不僅需要提供身份證明，

identification that in many instances would require them to show a passport or a birth certificate establishing U.S.

還需要提供在許多情況下需要出示護照或出生證明來證明美國公民身份的證明。

現在，對許多美國人，甚至大多數美國人來說，這並不是什麼大問題。

Now, for many Americans, most Americans even that is not a significant hardship.

但對相當一部分美國人來說，這將會是一種困難，會阻止他們投票。

But for a significant percentage of Americans, that would be a hardship that would prevent them from voting.

問題是，讓至少兩千一百萬美國人中的一大部分失去投票權的代價，是否值得阻止非公民投票？

The question becomes, is that cost disenfranchising at least a significant fraction of 21 million Americans worth the benefit of preventing non citizens from voting?

When we know from study after study that there are only a small, and

我們知道，研究一再顯示，在每次選舉中，只有極少數，

we're talking single digits per election year, number of noncitizens who actually cast a vote.

我們說的是個位數的非公民實際上會投票。

So it seems like that these are some major impacts this bill could have on voters.

所以看來這項法案可能會對選民產生一些重大影響。

Oh, there is no doubt that if this bill were to pass through the Senate, and

哦，毫無疑問，如果這項法案通過參議院，而且

to be clear, I think that's unlikely at the moment, but

說清楚點，我認為目前這不太可能，但

if the majority leader in the Senate, John Thune, elects to do away with the filibuster, then this bill could, that was the so called nuclear option, then this bill would pass the Senate and it would go to the President and it would have a dramatic impact and it would be an immediate impact in the 2026 midterms.

如果參議院多數黨領袖 John Thune 選擇取消冗長辯論，那麼這項法案，也就是所謂的核選項，就能通過參議院，然後送交總統，並在 2026 年期中選舉中產生劇烈且立即的影響。

There would be, in many instances, chaos, because the transition period, we think about November as being a long way away from the standpoint of election administration.

在許多情況下，將會出現混亂，因為從選舉行政的角度來看，過渡期，我們認為十一月還很遙遠。

This would be an upheaval of historic proportion.

So if this bill does become law, what kind of legal challenges could we see?

所以，如果這項法案真的成為法律，我們可能會看到哪些類型的法律挑戰？

You will see legal challenges from the states who will argue that this is a violation of that constitutional provision that I referenced before Article 1, Section 4, saying that they have the primary responsibility to.

你會看到各州提出法律挑戰，他們會爭辯說這違反了我之前提到的憲法條款，也就是第一條第四款，指出他們負有主要責任。

They would also argue, the 10th Amendment, that this is an intrusion on federalism.

他們也會爭辯，根據第十修正案，這侵犯了聯邦制。

And what's fascinating is that this is a bit of a juxtaposition.

Normally it is Democrats in Congress trying to pass legislation that prevents discriminatory practices, such as passing the Voting Rights act in federal elections.

通常是國會中的民主黨人試圖通過立法來阻止歧視性做法，例如在聯邦選舉中通過《投票權法》。

There would also be challenges from individual voters who would face the possibility of being disenfranchised.

也會有來自個別選民的挑戰，他們可能面臨被剝奪投票權的可能性。

And then Republicans are introducing another bill, the Make Elections Great Again Act.

然後共和黨人提出了另一項法案，叫做 Make Elections Great Again Act。

It would ban universal mail in voting, among other restrictions.

這項法案將禁止普遍的郵寄投票，以及其他限制措施。

How would these proposals change federal involvement in elections?

這些提案會如何改變聯邦政府在選舉中的角色？

Well, first, I think it's worth the two of us acknowledging the clever naming devices of all of these bills.

嗯，首先，我覺得我們兩個應該先承認這些法案取名的巧思。

I mean, Americans for Apple Pie sounds very good, but

我指的是，Americans for Apple Pie 聽起來很不錯，但

Make Elections Great Again, that act is actually more severe, more extreme than the Save America act is, in the sense that it would mandate that states undertake monthly purges of their voter rolls.

Make Elections Great Again 這項法案，其實比 Save America Act 更嚴重、更極端，因為它會強制各州每月清除選民名冊。

And the problem with that, it sounds innocuous on its face, but

問題是，聽起來好像沒什麼大不了，但

one thing that we have learned in study after study is that databases of names are rife with errors.

我們從研究中學到的一件事是，姓名資料庫充滿了錯誤。

And the matching problem, somebody uses a middle initial, somebody uses a married name, maiden name.

而比對的問題，有人用了中間名縮寫，有人用了婚前姓、婚後姓。

These things are very difficult, and it would cause chaos for sure.

這些事情非常困難，肯定會造成混亂。